TCF Bank - Dry Stadium

Donate To GopherHole
casual observer said:
The benefactors of this: Vikings, Wild, Twins and Wolves. Plain and simple. If I am the marketing director of a corporation and i want to obtain a suite to entertain clients, the U just lost my business. Not because my clients are booze fiends, but because an option and amenity available elsewhere isn't available at TCF.

The losers: 2 to 3 non revenue sports that will now go without funding... (men's gymnastics, women's golf, cc, etc...) AND-
facility improvements (tubby's practice palace, new basesball stadium for coach Anderson, etc...)

The sponsors of this bill blew it. If Rep. Rukavina is a U of M alumnus he certainly didn't do his school any service in this matter.
Click to expand...

don't really think it is "fair" to phrase either in the manner that you did. 1.) the new basketball practice facility is something that the U of M needed to invest in whether tubby was the coach here or not. 2.) same with the baseball stadium. it is not coach anderson's fault that he has done a pretty decent job and managed to hang onto his head coaching position for close to 30 years. he has put a lot of effort into getting a new baseball stadium pushed up the agenda of items that need to get done.
 

casual observer said:
The benefactors of this: Vikings, Wild, Twins and Wolves. Plain and simple. If I am the marketing director of a corporation and i want to obtain a suite to entertain clients, the U just lost my business. Not because my clients are booze fiends, but because an option and amenity available elsewhere isn't available at TCF.

The losers: 2 to 3 non revenue sports that will now go without funding... (men's gymnastics, women's golf, cc, etc...) AND-
facility improvements (tubby's practice palace, new basesball stadium for coach Anderson, etc...)

The sponsors of this bill blew it. If Rep. Rukavina is a U of M alumnus he certainly didn't do his school any service in this matter.
Click to expand...

Admittedly, I have not been following this issue that closely since it doesn't really make a lick of difference to me as I rarely bought beer in the metrodome when it was available to me. But, can someone enlighten me.....is it against big ten or ncaa bylaws to sell alcohol to the public in an on campus stadium?

I agree it is a bit ridiculous that our state government thinks they should be intervening with this. That being said, why can't the U just sell beer throughout the stadium? This way, non revenue sports don't suffer. Besides Hogeye fans I can't think of any big incidents caused by beer being sold at the dome. If they sold beer throughout, wouldn't more money be made and go towards non revenue sports, Tubby's facility and Coach Anderson's stadium?
 

MadisonRaisedGopherCrazed said:
Admittedly, I have not been following this issue that closely since it doesn't really make a lick of difference to me as I rarely bought beer in the metrodome when it was available to me. But, can someone enlighten me.....is it against big ten or ncaa bylaws to sell alcohol to the public in an on campus stadium?

I agree it is a bit ridiculous that our state government thinks they should be intervening with this. That being said, why can't the U just sell beer throughout the stadium? This way, non revenue sports don't suffer. Besides Hogeye fans I can't think of any big incidents caused by beer being sold at the dome. If they sold beer throughout, wouldn't more money be made and go towards non revenue sports, Tubby's facility and Coach Anderson's stadium?
Click to expand...

it is all explained pretty well in the posts above this one. suggest reading some of them. that being said. this has nothing to do with the fact alcohol was sold at the metrodome (a facility the U of M did not own, but simply leased. it was not up to them whether alcohol was sold there or not)! why can't some of you get that through you heads and stop comparing the two?!?!

also, no other big ten stadium sells or serves alcohol to general admission seating (read: mostly underage students) and the U of M was not about to be the first. there is no reason for them to do that. although, most of the big ten either sells or serves alcohol in their controlled premium seating areas which in turn provides more money to support their athletic depts. and keep non-revenue sports going.

when the U of M can no longer afford to keep non-revenue sports like: men's gymnastics, women's hockey, women's soccer, women's gymnastics, cross-country, women's softball, pretty much women's everything afloat because of what this type of decision does to the athletic dept. finances THEN perhaps the lame ass, pandering MN state legislature will reconsider the mistake they made with this law and allow the U of M to sell alcohol in only their controlled premium seating areas once again like the agreed to with the U of M over 3 years ago when TCF Bank Stadium was announced.

Gov. Pawlenty looks like a really bitch in this too by signing it. He is doing nothing, but pandering like the legislature since he knows he is going to run for president (and get destroyed) in a few years. What a jerk! One of the worst MN Govs ever in my opinion.
 

I can't say I am surprised at the idiocy of the MN legislature and the people that championed this bill (remember MN voted for Walter Mondale too), I don't think the impact will be that great if the Gophers do what they need to do on the field, court and rink.

Fans will come and corporations will spend if we win. Now the price of a hotdog and coke just went up 20 cents to cover the loss of premium liquor sales...but I am not too worried about the ability of luxury suite hosts to bring in their own bottles and the rest of us to stow a pint in our underwear.

We are not the first place to have no liquor...Dallas has played in a stadium for 30 years without liquor and many southern campuses are dry as well...success and financial reward comes with winning.

So we should start winning.
 

What is the Big Deal?

Seriously, 45,000 or more people were planning on not being able to drink in the stadium or at least smuggle their own in. Not sure why this is such a big deal. I've had student and season tickets for 12 years and rarely bought more than one beer in the Dome because of the price and the fact that I had my fill during the pre-game. A dry stadium is a much better idea. Also enforcing the dry stadium will allow offenders to be booted and allow people on the waiting list to get tickets to the games.
 


Do they still sell beer at Northrup? How do they get away with that?
 

Last month there was a thread Bruininks vs. Booze in which I listed the 19 legislators (10 reps, 9 senators) that voted no on the bill. The breakdown was 9 DFL, 10 Republican. Our friend Sen. Larry Pogemiller voted no.

The rest of the bill had nothing that anyone would argue, so the TCF stadium issue is the only reason to vote no.
 

MaxyJR1 said:
Seriously, 45,000 or more people were planning on not being able to drink in the stadium or at least smuggle their own in. Not sure why this is such a big deal. I've had student and season tickets for 12 years and rarely bought more than one beer in the Dome because of the price and the fact that I had my fill during the pre-game. A dry stadium is a much better idea. Also enforcing the dry stadium will allow offenders to be booted and allow people on the waiting list to get tickets to the games.
Click to expand...


Dammit man. Did you read this thread? At all? Why is it a big deal? Revenue - loss of lots potential revenue. Look at the simple math involved. Let's assume 1000 people have access to the the premium seating area (I don't have the time to look at the exact amount but I believe it would probably be higher). Conservatively each person on a gameday consumes just 1 drink.
One beer or wine @ $6.00. $6000 per game lost. $42,000 per year lost. That is a very conservative estimate at drinks could probably cost more or offer mixed cocktails at a higher price. I'd be willing to bet that closer to $100,000 or more of potential revenue is lost per year.

Why? Because too many UpNorthGopher's live in this and have a job as a state legislator. I'd be willing to bet that less than 5% of those that voted on that subject have ever been to a Gopher football game. Of that 5% I bet three-fourths have never been to a Division 1 game outside the state of Minnesota.
 

Bronko Nagurski Gopher said:
it is all explained pretty well in the posts above this one. suggest reading some of them. that being said. this has nothing to do with the fact alcohol was sold at the metrodome (a facility the U of M did not own, but simply leased. it was not up to them whether alcohol was sold there or not)! why can't some of you get that through you heads and stop comparing the two?!?!

also, no other big ten stadium sells or serves alcohol to general admission seating (read: mostly underage students) and the U of M was not about to be the first. there is no reason for them to do that. although, most of the big ten either sells or serves alcohol in their controlled premium seating areas which in turn provides more money to support their athletic depts. and keep non-revenue sports going.

when the U of M can no longer afford to keep non-revenue sports like: men's gymnastics, women's hockey, women's soccer, women's gymnastics, cross-country, women's softball, pretty much women's everything afloat because of what this type of decision does to the athletic dept. finances THEN perhaps the lame ass, pandering MN state legislature will reconsider the mistake they made with this law and allow the U of M to sell alcohol in only their controlled premium seating areas once again like the agreed to with the U of M over 3 years ago when TCF Bank Stadium was announced.
Click to expand...

I'm not comparing if the U could or could not sell alcohol in the metrodome and in TCF. The reason I am comparing the two is because the same type of fans will be attending games in TCF attended games at the metrodome. Just because we are now going to be watching games in TCF does not turn every fan into an 18-20 year old undergrad.

I highly doubt all women's sports are now in trouble because of the MN Legislature sticking their nose in the U's business(see title IX). Like another poster said prices will be raised elsewhere. The original point of my post was to ask if they are stopped by some other org from selling alcohol on campus. Apparently, there are no NCAA or Big Ten rules prohibiting alcohol being sold, it is just that the U does not want to go against the norm.
 



Inigo Montoya said:
Dammit man. Did you read this thread? At all? Why is it a big deal? Revenue - loss of lots potential revenue. Look at the simple math involved. Let's assume 1000 people have access to the the premium seating area (I don't have the time to look at the exact amount but I believe it would probably be higher). Conservatively each person on a gameday consumes just 1 drink.
One beer or wine @ $6.00. $6000 per game lost. $42,000 per year lost. That is a very conservative estimate at drinks could probably cost more or offer mixed cocktails at a higher price. I'd be willing to bet that closer to $100,000 or more of potential revenue is lost per year.

Why? Because too many UpNorthGopher's live in this and have a job as a state legislator. I'd be willing to bet that less than 5% of those that voted on that subject have ever been to a Gopher football game. Of that 5% I bet three-fourths have never been to a Division 1 game outside the state of Minnesota.
Click to expand...


They are gaining the revenue from parking and the stadium itself. Where has that money been for the last 25 year? Have any athletic programs gone away? I think they built a new Men's and Women's Hockey arena, a fitness and aquatic center, as well as rowing and softball. $42,000 is a drop in the bucket.
 

Bruininks could have easily resolved this issue by establishing a beer garden for the non-premium seats. Since he chose not to do it I assume he is not panicking over the loss of revenue like some people in GopherHole. The legislature is not going to reverse their decision because most people in Minnesota agree with it.
 

The University will probably lower the price of their premium seats as a result of this. So the "rich fans" will pay less than before.

To make up for the lost revenue the University will probably raise the price of tickets/food in the general area. So the "average fans" will pay more than before...and still get no beer.

So government intervention = breaks for the rich....more expenses for the middle class.

We need Ron Paul.
 

DarrenTheGreek said:
The University will probably lower the price of their premium seats as a result of this. So the "rich fans" will pay less than before.

To make up for the lost revenue the University will probably raise the price of tickets/food in the general area. So the "average fans" will pay more than before...and still get no beer.

So government intervention = breaks for the rich....more expenses for the middle class.

We need Ron Paul.
Click to expand...
Yep, the price of a hot dog and coke just went up a dollar. Darcy Pohland will be all over this story. Father and son can't afford Gophers games because coke is 6 dollars. Story at 6 and 10.
 



glovedgopher said:
Yep, the price of a hot dog and coke just went up a dollar. Darcy Pohland will be all over this story. Father and son can't afford Gophers games because coke is 6 dollars. Story at 6 and 10.
Click to expand...

That's one of the things that pisses me off most about this story. Was watching KSTP news after the b-ball game last night and they ran with this as their lead story. The way they presented it, the average person will think the University just decided out of the blue not to serve alcohol in the general seating areas. Do people not realize that beer has never been served in Williams and Mariucci? Do people not realize that the fact they couldn't buy a beer in the general seating area is nothing new? Of course the "reporters" didn't do anything to explain this. Instead they went to people on the street to get their reaction and it was all "Why can't we have beer? What's the big deal?" responses. Ahhhh, for the days when being a reporter meant actually getting to the bottom of a story.
 

Golden Shower said:
Blame it on those liberal commies who have to tell everyone how to live their lives and have to mandate behavior accept when it comes to their telling them how to live their life and their behavior! Sad day for Minnesota!!
Click to expand...

Dude....seriously?
 

Loop Hole?

Sorry if somone else already posted this thought, can the U just setup one small spot in the stadium with a warm 12 pack and charge $500 a beer? Then serve whatever in the suites?
 

If you're going to sell beer for $500 to be in technical complaince with the law, it ought to be at least a good beer. But I suppose you could be in technical compliance with the law if beer was technically available, but impossible in practice.

Could the law be gotten around by selling near beer in the stands, or isn't that strong enough to legally count?
 

WannaCMyGophers said:
Loop Hole?

Sorry if somone else already posted this thought, can the U just setup one small spot in the stadium with a warm 12 pack and charge $500 a beer? Then serve whatever in the suites?
Click to expand...
Yeah, you think the media wouldn't be all over that in a heartbeat?
 

I do applaud the President for tactfully putting the spotlight on the legislature and Governor rather than just going all PC on it...

"From the beginning of this project, we planned to sell alcohol only in controlled-access, premium seating areas of the stadium, consistent with the practice of the vast majority of college campuses," Bruininks said in a prepared statement. "This was the plan we shared publicly and with the legislature three years ago, and the plan that our business model was based upon.

"Unfortunately, this new legislation leaves us with only two options: to become the only Big Ten campus in the country to sell alcohol throughout its football stadium, or to not sell alcohol at all. Our values do not change, even if our plans must. We have never sold alcohol at student-oriented events in the past, and I do not recommend we start now."
 


Maximus said:
I do applaud the President for tactfully putting the spotlight on the legislature and Governor rather than just going all PC on it...

"From the beginning of this project, we planned to sell alcohol only in controlled-access, premium seating areas of the stadium, consistent with the practice of the vast majority of college campuses," Bruininks said in a prepared statement. "This was the plan we shared publicly and with the legislature three years ago, and the plan that our business model was based upon.

"Unfortunately, this new legislation leaves us with only two options: to become the only Big Ten campus in the country to sell alcohol throughout its football stadium, or to not sell alcohol at all. Our values do not change, even if our plans must. We have never sold alcohol at student-oriented events in the past, and I do not recommend we start now."
Click to expand...

yeah, now only if the media would do their jobs and report is as such. Rather than pandering to the public (most who still don't know the actual details that were really involved in all of this) like the MN legislature did.
 

First let me say that I don't care if they have beer or not in the stadium, but can someone explain to me why the ncaa and Bruinicks recieve no critisism on this? If it is the intent of Bruinicks to protect the students from the evils of alchohol and the stadium must be dry then why would they allow it in the tailgate lots on University property? I think the answer is if you pony up and buy a premium seat its ok or if you spend the money for for a tailgate spot its also ok to drink. How are the students protected in the parking lots? It seems to be a contradiction in philosophy but at least he is consistant in saying if you make an extra donation you can drink. As for the ncaa if they merely suggest that alchohol not be allowed but really whant it prohibited than why don't they just come out with a ruling banning it instead of beating around the bush? As for the legislature it was my understanding that it was their job to pass liquor laws and grant liquor licenses not the ncaa's.
 

69Gophers said:
First let me say that I don't care if they have beer or not in the stadium, but can someone explain to me why the ncaa and Bruinicks recieve no critisism on this? If it is the intent of Bruinicks to protect the students from the evils of alchohol and the stadium must be dry then why would they allow it in the tailgate lots on University property? I think the answer is if you pony up and buy a premium seat its ok or if you spend the money for for a tailgate spot its also ok to drink. How are the students protected in the parking lots? It seems to be a contradiction in philosophy but at least he is consistant in saying if you make an extra donation you can drink. As for the ncaa if they merely suggest that alchohol not be allowed but really whant it prohibited than why don't they just come out with a ruling banning it instead of beating around the bush? As for the legislature it was my understanding that it was their job to pass liquor laws and grant liquor licenses not the ncaa's.
Click to expand...

I don't think the NCAA has anything to do with this. Bruinicks is taking the position that they do not want to sell or serve alcohol to students on campus -- legal age or not -- as a matter of principle. The legislature passed a law that does not allow them to do this unless they do not sell or serve to anyone. There never was a plan to sell or serve alcohol in parking lots.
 

GILBball said:
http://www.journalstar.com/blog/nealo.php?title=today_s_cartoon_142&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#comments

This will all probably just work out the same way things have at Nebraska, another "dry" stadium.
Click to expand...


We can only hope that it does. They have the luxury however of selling out every game for the last 36 years and their premium suites are leased on 10 or 25 year leases depending on the suite. If we put a good product on the field in the next year or two however the suites and the stadium should sell out regardless of booze or not. If we do not then the athletic budget may get a little tight in the future.
 


TCF was the first step in a bright-shining revenue generating instrument for the program. The people who really made it happen just got a kick in the teeth by a very ignorant legislature and a less than creative U (beer garden). TCF, DQ and all the other benefactors just had the rug pulled out from under them. Their is outright mutiny being talked about by those who spent $1800 a seat to $45000 for a suite.

2MM in estimated revenue (tcf/williams/mariucci) from premium sales just went bye-bye. There is no contigency. debt service is real, my friend.

REALITY. lack of revenue - sports get cut. lack of supporters - we do not compete. We don't compete... Tubby goes to ACC and Coach Anderson continues to play in a glorified HS stadium.

Our neighbor to the east (border battle) is giggling. It's a sad day.
 

Does anyone know where you can go to see who voted for this bill and who was against it? Be nice to know what kind of letter to send to my representative.
 

I sent an email to Rukavina and Pawlenty. Looks like the nice bar areas in the premium section will be serving DQ Blizzards instead of mixed drinks.
 

Question

Does this apply to all Minnesota campus stadiums/arenas? Can Duluth serve alcohol in their suites?
 


You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom